Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?

  • 59 Replies
  • 8463 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41868
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #30 on: December 18, 2011, 05:59:28 PM »
Tom we have been over this.  Retrograde motion produces S shapes as well. How does that happen?

Correct, we have been over this. As I've said, an S shape can be made by adjusting the variables of the scene.

Check out this link: http://astro.unl.edu/naap/ssm/animations/ptolemaic.swf

This is a geocentric model with the earth at the center, but the idea of circles moving around circles is the same. Adjust the variables and you can easily get S shapes.

That geocentric model assumes that the earth is round.

Then it's a good thing that I presented it as a circle simulator and not in support of the geocentric model, isn't it?

Have you tested that simulator to see if the circles simulated would be consistent with celestial observations from a flat earth?   How would those simulated circles fit in with your celestial gear model?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #31 on: December 18, 2011, 06:06:11 PM »
Have you tested that simulator to see if the circles simulated would be consistent with celestial observations from a flat earth?   How would those simulated circles fit in with your celestial gear model?

Markjo, please read along. I made no claim that the circles in the simulator predicted anything about the night sky. It's a free-form sandbox tool to see the paths bodies make in circles of different sizes and eccentricities.

"OrbisNonSufficit" was asking how an S shape could be made with two circles moving around each other. I posted the simulator as a way to demonstrate that S shapes could easily be made by adjusting the eccentricity, circle size, apogee angle, etc. You can make all sorts of shapes. A loopty-loop isn't the only possible shape.

« Last Edit: December 18, 2011, 06:18:52 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #32 on: December 18, 2011, 06:26:57 PM »
I made no claim that the circles in the simulator predicted anything about the night sky. It's a free-form sandbox tool to see the paths bodies make in circles of different sizes and eccentricities.

Come on, Tom. These mean the same thing. Showing the paths they would take is a prediction.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #33 on: December 18, 2011, 06:33:34 PM »
The planets do pass by overhead every night. They just don't make loops in the sky each night. In the diagram, while the sun is moving at one rotation per 24 hours, and the planets are circling the earth at one rotation per 24 hours, the planets are moving around the sun at a much slower rate.

The retrograde motion happens by tracing the path of the planet in the sky over a long period of time.
1) No, the inner planets, for example, do not pass over head every night.
2) The diagram definitely shows the planet moving around the Sun three times. What else would cause the loops? The Sun path doesn't even cover 12 hours. How do you argue that the diagram shows anything different?
3) Until you can show us that this new model of yours addresses the observations why should we even discuss it? Can FET predict retrograde motion of the outer planets? If so, please demonstrate that. Until you do, RET wins!
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41868
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #34 on: December 18, 2011, 07:41:21 PM »
Markjo, please read along. I made no claim that the circles in the simulator predicted anything about the night sky. It's a free-form sandbox tool to see the paths bodies make in circles of different sizes and eccentricities.

You agreed that retrograde motion is observed in the night sky.  Why would you post a link to a retrograde motion simulator if it isn't compatible with FET?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #35 on: December 18, 2011, 11:53:44 PM »
Also, why are the planets attracted to the sun, but are strangely not affected by the force that keeps the sun in its orbit?
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #36 on: December 19, 2011, 05:48:16 AM »
I made no claim that the circles in the simulator predicted anything about the night sky. It's a free-form sandbox tool to see the paths bodies make in circles of different sizes and eccentricities.

Come on, Tom. These mean the same thing. Showing the paths they would take is a prediction.

What you highlighted don't mean the same thing.

It's a sandbox tool that allows you to change the variables of a scene to make different possible configurations. It doesn't predict future events in the night sky.

Quote from: clocktower
1) No, the inner planets, for example, do not pass over head every night.

Actually, they do.

Quote
2) The diagram definitely shows the planet moving around the Sun three times. What else would cause the loops? The Sun path doesn't even cover 12 hours. How do you argue that the diagram shows anything different?

You're assuming that the planets are making those loops over 12 hours. You are incorrect. The planets move very slowly around the sun.

Quote
3) Until you can show us that this new model of yours addresses the observations why should we even discuss it? Can FET predict retrograde motion of the outer planets? If so, please demonstrate that. Until you do, RET wins!

By adjusting the variable of the scene any shape can be made. See the simulator I linked.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 05:54:48 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #37 on: December 19, 2011, 05:54:06 AM »
Markjo, please read along. I made no claim that the circles in the simulator predicted anything about the night sky. It's a free-form sandbox tool to see the paths bodies make in circles of different sizes and eccentricities.

You agreed that retrograde motion is observed in the night sky.  Why would you post a link to a retrograde motion simulator if it isn't compatible with FET?

The poster asked for an explanation how an S shape can be made with circles moving around circles. I provided a sandbox tool which shows what S shapes are among the possible shapes that can be made, loopty loops included.

It's not a simulator which predicts future events.

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #38 on: December 19, 2011, 05:55:51 AM »
Quote from: clocktower
1) No, the inner planets, for example, do not pass over head every night.

Actually, they do.

Wrong, as usual. I've watched Venus (and to a lesser extent Mercury) over the years. Neither comes close to being overhead at night. During the day, yes. During the night, no.

Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #39 on: December 19, 2011, 06:02:02 AM »
Quote from: clocktower
1) No, the inner planets, for example, do not pass over head every night.

Actually, they do.

Wrong, as usual. I've watched Venus (and to a lesser extent Mercury) over the years. Neither comes close to being overhead at night. During the day, yes. During the night, no.

Each planet passes across the sky in a 24 hour period, if not "at night."

Cease posting.

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #40 on: December 19, 2011, 06:05:50 AM »
Quote
2) The diagram definitely shows the planet moving around the Sun three times. What else would cause the loops? The Sun path doesn't even cover 12 hours. How do you argue that the diagram shows anything different?

You're assuming that the planets are making those loops over 12 hours. You are incorrect. The planets move very slowly around the sun.

No, I'm assuming that you drew the diagram to show what you meant. Explain how the planet can make these loops, as it orbits the Sun. You show the planet making a loop three times in the diagram. Explain how.

How does Jupiter travel more slowly than the Sun? Jupiter even in FET orbits the Sun. Shouldn't it travel at the same basic speed as the Sun, sometimes a little slower and sometimes a little faster, but always about the speed to match the once-a-day spinning of the RE?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #41 on: December 19, 2011, 06:09:04 AM »
Quote from: clocktower
1) No, the inner planets, for example, do not pass over head every night.

Actually, they do.

Wrong, as usual. I've watched Venus (and to a lesser extent Mercury) over the years. Neither comes close to being overhead at night. During the day, yes. During the night, no.

Each planet passes across the sky in a 24 hour period, if not "at night."

Cease posting.
Thank you Tom for admitting your error.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #42 on: December 19, 2011, 06:15:53 AM »

By adjusting the variable of the scene any shape can be made. See the simulator I linked.
Wrong, again.

Quote from: http://astro.unl.edu/naap/ssm/modeling.html
Specifically, the earth was placed at the center and was surrounded my numerous concentric crystalline spheres. The spheres rotated at different rates, along different axes, allowing the sun and planets to move slower than the stars. But this model did an inadequate job of explaining retrograde motion even with many shells (Aristotle’s model, for example, had some 55 spherical shells.)
Since your model does not have the planets going below the FE as this model requires, you cannot rely on it to support your cause. I've told you this before. Think about it. If you want to use the models of geocentric theories, you'll need FET to be compatible.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41868
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #43 on: December 19, 2011, 06:19:54 AM »
Markjo, please read along. I made no claim that the circles in the simulator predicted anything about the night sky. It's a free-form sandbox tool to see the paths bodies make in circles of different sizes and eccentricities.

You agreed that retrograde motion is observed in the night sky.  Why would you post a link to a retrograde motion simulator if it isn't compatible with FET?

The poster asked for an explanation how an S shape can be made with circles moving around circles. I provided a sandbox tool which shows what S shapes are among the possible shapes that can be made, loopty loops included.

It's not a simulator which predicts future events.

But it's a simulator that only works in a geocentric round earth model.  Unless this is the Geocentric Round Earth Society (last I checked it wasn't) or you are arguing that the earth is round (last I checked you weren't), then that simulator is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #44 on: December 19, 2011, 07:02:03 AM »
Also, why are the planets attracted to the sun, but are strangely not affected by the force that keeps the sun in its orbit?

This is a very important point.  Moreover, there seems to be four independent forces at work here:
   1. Sun and hub
   2. Stars and hub
   3. Planets and sun
   4. Earth and heavens  (what's holding it all up).

It's beginning to look rather complicated.  I think I know a much simpler solution...
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41868
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #45 on: December 19, 2011, 07:11:59 AM »
Also, why are the planets attracted to the sun, but are strangely not affected by the force that keeps the sun in its orbit?

This is a very important point.  Moreover, there seems to be four independent forces at work here:
   1. Sun and hub
   2. Stars and hubs
   3. Planets and sun
   4. Earth and heavens  (what's holding it all up).

It's beginning to look rather complicated.  I think I know a much simpler solution...

Fixed number 2 for you because Tom claims that there are multiple "celestial gears" (hubs) in the southern hemiplane.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #46 on: December 19, 2011, 07:14:15 AM »
Also, why are the planets attracted to the sun, but are strangely not affected by the force that keeps the sun in its orbit?

This is a very important point.  Moreover, there seems to be four independent forces at work here:
   1. Sun and hub
   2. Stars and hub
   3. Planets and sun
   4. Earth and heavens  (what's holding it all up).

It's beginning to look rather complicated.  I think I know a much simpler solution...

It's not very important that it's complicated or simple.

FE need a theory which explains and predicts. so far, the two conditions have never been fulfilled a the same time.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #47 on: December 19, 2011, 09:05:34 AM »
No, I'm assuming that you drew the diagram to show what you meant. Explain how the planet can make these loops, as it orbits the Sun. You show the planet making a loop three times in the diagram. Explain how.

The planet makes the path over the course of months, not hours.

You seem to believe that the planets are moving as fast as the sun is, or that the path is representative of a single day.

Quote
How does Jupiter travel more slowly than the Sun? Jupiter even in FET orbits the Sun. Shouldn't it travel at the same basic speed as the Sun, sometimes a little slower and sometimes a little faster, but always about the speed to match the once-a-day spinning of the RE?

Jupiter does pass across the sky every 24 hours. Its movement around the sun is disconnected to the speed of the sun around the hub. Jupiter is moving much slower around the sun than the sun is moving around the hub. Over the span of many months, if one were to plot the course of Jupiter in the sky, one would see a retrograde motion.

This is the retrograde motion of the planets. The planets don't make loops in the sky over a single day, but over a long period of time.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 09:34:05 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #48 on: December 19, 2011, 09:08:35 AM »
But it's a simulator that only works in a geocentric round earth model.  Unless this is the Geocentric Round Earth Society (last I checked it wasn't) or you are arguing that the earth is round (last I checked you weren't), then that simulator is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Please follow along. It was presented as a circle simulator, to demonstrate that all sorts of shapes can be made when one circle is rotating around another circle.

Quote
Moreover, there seems to be four independent forces at work here:
   1. Sun and hub
   2. Stars and hub
   3. Planets and sun
   4. Earth and heavens  (what's holding it all up).

It's beginning to look rather complicated.  I think I know a much simpler solution...

RET also has multiple levels of systems. The moon is revolving around the earth, while the earth is revolving around the sun, while the sun is revolving around the galaxy, while the galaxy is revolving around the super cluster, while the super cluster is revolving around something unknown.

Not to mention that even with these systems, gravity is inconsistent. For example, in the Round Earth model stellar systems like galaxies aren't supposed to move as if they were solid disks. Describing the movements of galaxies and super clusters has been a challenge to astronomers. Newtonian mechanics and "Gravity" predicts that the bodies towards the interior of the disk should move at a faster rate around the center than the bodies on the outside of the disk. This is exactly opposite of what is observed.

See this quote from softpedia.com:

    "According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below)."

Whenever a brick wall like this comes up astronomers invent a fictitious hypothesis to explain occurrences. In this case they invented "Dark Matter" to explain why the galaxies rotated as they did.  "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" need to fill up something like 98% of the universe in order to save the failings of gravity.

They placed one unproven hypothesis upon the next in an effort to keep the house of cards called Gravity from crashing to the ground. The necessity for truth is denied entirely.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 09:19:07 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #49 on: December 19, 2011, 09:24:46 AM »
No, I'm assuming that you drew the diagram to show what you meant. Explain how the planet can make these loops, as it orbits the Sun. You show the planet making a loop three times in the diagram. Explain how.

The planet makes the path over the course of months.

It doesn't make the path over the course of hours.
Then you should show that in your diagram. Your current diagram is quite clear that the planet orbits the Sun three times while the Sun moves less that 12 hours.
Quote

Quote
How does Jupiter travel more slowly than the Sun? Jupiter even in FET orbits the Sun. Shouldn't it travel at the same basic speed as the Sun, sometimes a little slower and sometimes a little faster, but always about the speed to match the once-a-day spinning of the RE?

Jupiter does pass across the sky every 24 hours. It'sIts movement around the sun is disconnected tofrom the speed of the sun around the hub. Jupiter is moving much slower around the sun than the sun is moving around the hub. Over the course of many months, if one werewas to plot the course of Jupiter in the sky, one would see a retrograde motion.

This is the retrograde motion of the planets. The planets don't make loops in the sky over a single day, but over a long period of time.
So you misspoke again. Noted. I do appreciate your correcting yourself. Thanks.

Now let's go over the errors here. I do wish you'd start to pay attention.

1) Not all planets have retrograde periods, just Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
2) If your diagram is wrong, then you should fix it.
3) There is no way FET can have retrograde motion of those five planets. I challenge to provide evidence that "Over the course of many months, if one werewas to plot the course of Jupiter in the sky, one would see a retrograde motion."
4) Here's a thought experiment to disprove your theory. During each and every retrograde period of Mars, and in FET, Mars is far away from the Sun. Indeed it's as far away from the Sun as ever. (Retrograde motion occurs only when the Earth overtakes the outer planet in their orbits, so the planet is away from the Sun.) So how can you argue that the retrograde motion occurs when the outer planet is so far away, and hence not looping at all during this time.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #50 on: December 19, 2011, 09:26:22 AM »
Tom Bishop contradicting himself by poking fun at "Dark Energy" is just too good. ALL of our system levels are based on gravity. FET's system levels are based on individual theories. The real question is why did you even bring up Galaxies? FET doesn't have galaxies.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #51 on: December 19, 2011, 09:52:13 AM »
Then you should show that in your diagram. Your current diagram is quite clear that the planet orbits the Sun three times while the Sun moves less that 12 hours.

Your thinking that everything was moving at similar speeds, or that the diagram illustrated movement over the course of a single day, was entirely your own imagination. If you wanted clarification you should have asked kindly.

Quote
Now let's go over the errors here. I do wish you'd start to pay attention.

1) Not all planets have retrograde periods, just Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

And again, depending on the variables involved, not all planets would retrograde. Some can make S shapes, for example. See the circle simulator.

Quote
2) If your diagram is wrong, then you should fix it.

The diagram is not wrong. Your assumptions are wrong.

Quote
3) There is no way FET can have retrograde motion of those five planets. I challenge to provide evidence that "Over the course of many months, if one werewas to plot the course of Jupiter in the sky, one would see a retrograde motion."

The diagram shows quite clearly that if the a planet were rotating around the sun in that manner, a retrograde would occur, no matter how slowly the planet was moving around the sun.

Quote
4) Here's a thought experiment to disprove your theory. During each and every retrograde period of Mars, and in FET, Mars is far away from the Sun. Indeed it's as far away from the Sun as ever. (Retrograde motion occurs only when the Earth overtakes the outer planet in their orbits, so the planet is away from the Sun.) So how can you argue that the retrograde motion occurs when the outer planet is so far away, and hence not looping at all during this time.

Again, S shapes are possible. Sometimes the planet just seems to stop in its tracks, goes in reverse for a while, and then head back on its path. Any challenge you can bring to the particular shape of the retrograde can be explained by modifying the variables involved. See the circle simulator.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 09:55:04 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #52 on: December 19, 2011, 10:09:51 AM »
Tom Bishop contradicting himself by poking fun at "Dark Energy" is just too good. ALL of our system levels are based on gravity. FET's system levels are based on individual theories. The real question is why did you even bring up Galaxies? FET doesn't have galaxies.

It was claimed that the FET solar system is complicated and mysterious.

But there are many unknowns and inconsistencies in the RE universe. The rotation of galaxies is just one example. Look at Inflation Theory, for instance. Cosmologists couldn't explain why according to their scales the universe seemed to be expanding faster than the speed of light so they made up some "metric expansion of space" theory to explain it.

Scientists need to make up all sorts of supporting hypothesis' to explain observations of the skies. The heavens are not explainable in RET without needing a house of cards to explain it.

These speculations don't even work out themselves. Now there's "cold dark matter," "warm dark matter," and "hot dark matter." Astronomers and cosmologists really just seem to be making it up as they go along.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 10:17:56 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #53 on: December 19, 2011, 10:13:41 AM »
Tom Bishop contradicting himself by poking fun at "Dark Energy" is just too good. ALL of our system levels are based on gravity. FET's system levels are based on individual theories. The real question is why did you even bring up Galaxies? FET doesn't have galaxies.

It was claimed that the FET solar system is complicated and mysterious.

But there are many unknowns and inconsistencies in the RE universe. The rotation of galaxies is just one example. Look at Inflation Theory, for instance. Cosmologists couldn't explain why according to their scales the early universe seems to be expanding faster than the speed of light so they made up some "metric expansion of space" theory to explain it.

Scientists need to make up all sorts of supporting hypothesis' to explain observations of the skies. The heavens are not explainable in RET without needing a house of cards to explain it.

I only put one question in that very short five sentence post yet you still managed to dodge it while writing a paragraph. Tom, its almost as if you purposefully ignored the question!

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #54 on: December 19, 2011, 11:01:14 AM »
Again, S shapes are possible. Sometimes the planet just seems to stop in its tracks, goes in reverse for a while, and then head back on its path. Any challenge you can bring to the particular shape of the retrograde can be explained by modifying the variables involved. See the circle simulator.
So your argument is that since a theory that supposes a round earth and that the Sun and planets orbit it (and not just around a point over the Earth) can be modified to get the shape you want and that your theory has the same characteristics, then FET explains retrograde motion.

So you agree that any model of any theory can be used to prove another theory, right? Then I submit that Google Earth proves that the Earth is round using the same logic.

I guess that I'll have to open a new topic soon, just to draw the results you claim you can get with your modelling. It's really disappointing the Zetetic would accept such an old model for the basis of his conclusion. Robotham would be so disappointed in you.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41868
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #55 on: December 19, 2011, 11:41:05 AM »
But it's a simulator that only works in a geocentric round earth model.  Unless this is the Geocentric Round Earth Society (last I checked it wasn't) or you are arguing that the earth is round (last I checked you weren't), then that simulator is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Please follow along. It was presented as a circle simulator, to demonstrate that all sorts of shapes can be made when one circle is rotating around another circle.

 I understand that part.  The part that I don't understand is how does this circle simulator relates to how retrograde motion works in FET.  That was the gist of the question that you were responding to when you presented it, was it not?
« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 12:22:09 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #56 on: December 19, 2011, 12:06:02 PM »
Markjo, please read along. I made no claim that the circles in the simulator predicted anything about the night sky. It's a free-form sandbox tool to see the paths bodies make in circles of different sizes and eccentricities.

You agreed that retrograde motion is observed in the night sky.  Why would you post a link to a retrograde motion simulator if it isn't compatible with FET?

The poster asked for an explanation how an S shape can be made with circles moving around circles. I provided a sandbox tool which shows what S shapes are among the possible shapes that can be made, loopty loops included.

It's not a simulator which predicts future events.

No one said it was, Tom. In fact, markjo didn't even use the word "predict"; you did, and then you narrowed the definition to straw-man markjo. Prediction is not simply divining the future. A simulation that shows what happens based on variables is, in other words, a prediction of what would happen if those variables occurred in the real world. Markjo wants to know why you're using predictions based upon RET assumptions to defend FET.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #57 on: December 19, 2011, 12:14:09 PM »
Markjo wants to know why you're using predictions based upon RET assumptions to defend FET.
I repeat this point for emphasis. Tom, if you use a model that works if and only if the Earth is round, you have failed.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #58 on: December 19, 2011, 05:09:48 PM »
Tom Bishop contradicting himself by poking fun at "Dark Energy" is just too good. ALL of our system levels are based on gravity. FET's system levels are based on individual theories. The real question is why did you even bring up Galaxies? FET doesn't have galaxies.

It was claimed that the FET solar system is complicated and mysterious.

But there are many unknowns and inconsistencies in the RE universe. The rotation of galaxies is just one example. Look at Inflation Theory, for instance. Cosmologists couldn't explain why according to their scales the universe seemed to be expanding faster than the speed of light so they made up some "metric expansion of space" theory to explain it.

Scientists need to make up all sorts of supporting hypothesis' to explain observations of the skies. The heavens are not explainable in RET without needing a house of cards to explain it.

These speculations don't even work out themselves. Now there's "cold dark matter," "warm dark matter," and "hot dark matter." Astronomers and cosmologists really just seem to be making it up as they go along.

Tom I am confused.  I can not get it to form an S in just three months.  Can you please give the me the settings that you used to achieve this?  Also its a bit odd that the planets are not orbiting the sun...

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #59 on: December 20, 2011, 04:39:08 AM »
I agree with you that it appears that FET is nowhere near as predictive as RET.  But I'm not sure why that means OR doesn't even apply.  To me that makes this a perfect situation to apply OR.  I think a well-intentioned FE believer could add a bunch of additional clauses to FET to give it some predictive power, but that's what makes RET the winner in my mind after you apply OR.

I understand OR is just a general thumb rule in the first place - as far as I can tell there's nothing written in the gears of the universe that means the simpler, more elegant theory is automatically the winner, but historically it seems to usually work that way.  But as far as I'm aware, there are no specific criteria that have to be met in order to apply OR.
Unfortunately Occam's Razor is misused so much that people tend to see it as a very generic, very blunt instrument. In the minds of most it means something like "prefer the simpler explanations over the complicated ones". But this is a totally erroneous generalization. The details of the definition are what give Occam's Razor its strength.

Your belief that "there are no specific criteria that have to be met in order to apply OR" is wrong. The two theories have to have the same predicting power. If I have a theory that competes against Newton's laws, for example, I have to predict the same results (like how fast a ball will go at the end of this ramp, or how much force can go from the explosion of gas in a motor's cylinder to the wheels,  and so much more) and be more elegant, simpler or somehow more compelling. This is where I can use the Razor.

Also, there is no way a "FE believer could add a bunch of additional clauses to FET to give it some predictive power". The Sun just cannot be in the right place for all to see it where they are seeing it. The same goes for all you see in the sky, even satellites. There is no way the distances between geographical locations can match what we have seen and measured. And so on. One clause will solve one problem and create ten more.